Advait Thatikonda
Senior Editor, Legal WIND
Date Of Judgment: January 25, 1978
Bench: M.H. Beg, C.J., Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and P.S Kailasam
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: [(1978)1 SCC 248]
Introduction
The landmark ruling in Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India, which stands as a bulwark of the Right of Personal Liberty granted by Article 21 of the Constitution, started when the passport of the petitioner, in this case, was impounded by the authorities under the provisions of the Passport Act. This arbitrary act of impounding the passport eventually led to the pronouncement of a unanimous decision by a seven-judge bench of the apex court.
Brief Facts
This case is essentially about a woman journalist who had to fly to a different country on some official work. Maneka Gandhi (addressed as the petitioner) had applied for a Passport under the Indian Passport Act, 1967 which was also issued in due time. However, after being issued the passport, the regional passport officer has issued her a letter stating that her passport has been impounded or seized by the Government of India under certain provisions of the abovementioned Act. The said Act conferred powers on the administration to take certain actions in National Interest.
The petitioner was prompt in replying to the letter seeking the reason/grounds under which her passport has been impounded as a response to which a reply letter was issued. This letter has stated that such an administrative step was taken in the larger interest of the public and that she shall not be furnished a copy of the statement of reasons. The petitioner had then filed a written petition under Art.21 of the Constitution on grounds that the administrative steps taken by the Government of India have violated her fundamental rights under Art.21.
Political scenario during the proceedings
A political tussle had arisen instantly during the period after an emergency when the Janata Party had assumed power in 1977. Mrs. Maneka Gandhi was the daughter-in-law of the former prime minister of India, Mrs. Indira Gandhi. She had included political bias in her writings and published them on a platform called Surya. She even went on to the extent of publishing the pictures of the son of the defense minister Jagjivan Ram engaging in sexual intercourse with a student of Delhi University. These state of affairs reflect that there was an intense political rivalry prevailing.
Issues
● Whether the right to travel abroad is included under the ambit of Art.21
● What is the scope of the Due Procedure established by law?
●Whether the procedure laid in the Passport Act, 1967 for the administration to take steps in the interest of national security is violative of Fundamental rights?
●Whether the letter issued by the regional officer violative of the principles of natural justice?
Contentions by the Petitioners
The primary contentions of the petitioner were that the Rights to travel abroad, life and personal liberty, freedom of movement, and expression were all curtailed by the impugned order issued by the regional passport officer. It was also contended that the rights under articles 14, 19, and 21 are not exclusive but have a mutual nexus.
Furthermore, Section 10 (3) (c) of the Passport Act violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution because it violates the right to life and personal liberty. The said section in the Passport Act restricted the petitioner from traveling abroad. This was unconstitutional as right to travel abroad was encompassed within the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Lastly, it was contended that any procedure established by law is required to be free of arbitrariness and must comply with the “principles of natural justice”.
Contentions by the Respondents
The primary contention of the respondents was that the ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ was never covered under any clauses of Article 19(1) and hence, Article 19 is independent of proving the reasonableness of the actions taken by the Central Government. Also, that the Passport Law was not made to blow away the Fundamental Rights in any manner. Moreover, the Government should not be compelled to state its grounds for seizing or impounding someone’s passport for the public good and national safety. The respondents also relied on the principles laid in the A.K Gopalan case[1] that word law under Article 21 cannot be comprehended in the light of fundamental rules of natural justice. Lastly, it was said that the principles of natural justice are vague and ambiguous. Therefore, the constitution should not refer to such vague and ambiguous provisions as a part of it.
Judgment
In regard to the right to travel abroad, the court relied on the principle followed in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam[2] where it was stated that “personal liberty” in its ambit, also includes the right of locomotion and travel abroad. Hence, no person can be deprived of such rights, except through procedures established by law and since the State had not made any law regarding the regulation or prohibiting the rights of a person in such a case, the confiscation of the petitioner’s passport violates Article 21 and its grounds being unchallenged and arbitrary, it is also violative of Article 14.
Now, regarding the procedure established by law, it was held by the Apex court that any law or order shall be fair, just, and reasonable and shall not be arbitrary or oppressive. So, if a law does not conform to this permitted space under Art.21, the same shall be deemed violative of fundamental rights and therefore, unconstitutional. In the instant case too, the court held that the administrative step to impound the petitioner’s passport was arbitrary.
So, the powers conferred under certain provisions of the Passport Act[3] were held to be not violative of any fundamental rights, especially Article 14. In the present case, the petitioner is not discriminated in any manner under Article 14 because the statute provided does not provide unrestricted powers to the authorities. On grounds of “in the interests of the public” is not vague and undefined, rather it is protected by certain guidelines which can be borrowed from Article 19.
Lastly, A. K. Gopalan was overruled stating that there is a unique relationship between the provisions of Article 14, 19 & 21 and every law must pass the tests of the said provisions. Earlier in Gopalan, the majority held that these provisions are mutually exclusive. Therefore, to correct its earlier mistake the court held that these provisions are not mutually exclusive and depend on each other.
Analysis
The above judgment was widely appreciated in the country because the dictum in the A.K Gopalan case was overruled. Also, by providing a liberal interpretation to Maneka Gandhi, the courts had set a benchmark for coming generations to seek their basic rights whether or not explicitly mentioned under part III of the constitution.
Today, the courts have successfully interpreted different cases in order to establish socio-economic and cultural rights under the umbrella of Article 21 such as Right to Clean Air, Right to Clean Water, Right to freedom from Noise Pollution, Speedy Trial, Legal Aid, Right to Livelihood, Right to Food, Right to Medical Care, Right to Clean Environment, etc. as a part of Right to Life & Personal liberty. The judgment opened new dimensions in the judicial activism and PIL’s were appreciated and judges took interests in liberal interpretation wherever it was needed in the prevailing justice.
Conclusion
The judgment’s most important feature was the interlinking it laid down between the provisions of Articles 19, 14, and 21. Through this link, the supreme court made these provisions inseparable and into a single entity. Now, any procedure has to meet all the requirements mentioned under these three articles to be held valid. As a result, this judgment enlarged the scope of personal liberty significantly and preserved the fundamental & constitutional right to life. This judgment, apart from protecting citizens from the unchallenged actions of the Executive, also preserved the sanctity of parliamentary law, when it refused to strike down the 1967 Act’s Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5).
Comments